The property is a large
detached house, set away from all boundaries. The application was for a proposed extension, the single storey
part of which would have covered the whole of the side elevation, and then continued to a point 4m beyond the
line of the original rear wall. The extension would have then wrapped-around the corner to project
from the rear elevation, although the part directly to the rear of the main house would have had two storeys
both at a reduced projection of 3m from the original rear wall.

The key issue was whether
Class A, part A.1(e), and Class A, part A.1(h) would allow such an extension. For reference, the relevant parts
of these two limitations are as follows:

Class A, part
A.1(e):

“Development is not permitted
by Class A if … the enlarged part of the dwellinghouse would … extend beyond the rear wall of the original
dwellinghouse by more than by more than 4 metres in the case of a detached dwellinghouse, or 3 metres in the
case of any other dwellinghouse”.

Class A, part
A.1(h):

“Development is not permitted
by Class A if … the enlarged part of the dwellinghouse would extend beyond a wall forming a side elevation of
the original dwellinghouse, and would …have a width greater than half the width of the original
dwellinghouse”

In response to this, the
Inspector stated the following:

“Class A allows as
permitted development the enlargement, improvement or other alteration of a dwellinghouse. A.1(e), however,
states that development is not permitted if the enlarged part of the dwellinghouse would have a single storey
and (i) extend beyond the rear wall of the original dwellinghouse by more than 4 metres in the case of a
detached dwellinghouse ….. , or (ii) exceed 4 metres in height. A.1(h) states that development is not permitted
if the enlarged part of the dwellinghouse would extend beyond a wall forming a side elevation of the original
dwellinghouse and would (i) exceed 4 metres in height, (ii) have more than one storey, or (iii) have a width
greater than half the width of the original dwellinghouse.

I am interpreting “beyond”
as defined in the Concise Oxford Dictionary as “at or to the further side of” and in my view the corner
extension would not in the terms of the GPDO be “beyond” either the rear wall or a wall forming a side
elevation of the original dwellinghouse. Even, however, if this were not the case and the single storey
corner enlargement was held to be beyond the rear wall or a wall forming a side elevation of the original
dwellinghouse I am satisfied that the limitations specified at A.1(e) and (h) would be met. The test under Class
A is whether the proposal would offend the exclusions and I conclude that this proposal would
not”.

[Note: For my
notes on the above conclusion, please refer to the notes that I wrote for the earlier appeal decision “October 2009 - Code
a00035”].

Although not specifically
addressed by the Inspector, the fact that this appeal was allowed implies that under Class A, part A.1(h), an
extension that extends beyond an original side wall can have an overallwidth greater than
half the width of the house, so long as the part of the extension that extends beyond the original side
wall does not do so by more than half the width of the house.

Although not specifically
addressed by the Inspector, the fact that this appeal was allowed implies that where parts of a proposed
extension would extend beyond a wall forming a side elevation, the restriction in Class A, part A.1(h) against
having more than one storey would only apply to that part of the extension that would extend
beyond the side elevation.

[Note: The
above conclusion appears to contradict the following two appeal decisions:

In the appeal
decision for December 2009 - Code
a00058, the Inspector concluded that, in relation to Class A, part A.1(f), if
any part of the proposed extension “would have more than one storey” then the subsequent restriction on
the projection “beyond the rear wall” would apply to all parts of the proposed
extension.

Similarly, in
the appeal decision for December 2009 - Code
a00062, the Inspector concluded that, in relation to Class A, part A.1(g), if
any part of the proposed extension “would be within 2 metres of the boundary” then the subsequent
restriction on “the height of the eaves” would apply to all parts of the proposed
extension.

However, with
this appeal decision forJanuary 2010 - Code
a00088, the Inspector concluded that, in relation to Class A, part
A.1(h), even though part of the proposed extension “would extend beyond a wall forming a side elevation”,
the subsequent restriction against having “more than one storey” would only apply to that part of
the extension that would extend beyond the side elevation].

Main
Conclusions:

·Where the rear and side
elevations of a property are flat (i.e. not stepped), Class A, part A.1(e), and Class A, part A.1(h)
would allow* an extension to project 3m/4m from the rear elevation and then wrap-around the
corner to project half the width of the house from the side elevation.
(*subject to compliance with all other limitations and conditions, of course)[Note: This would appear to contradict at
least one other appeal decision – for further information see the entry in the “Reference Section” on “Interaction
between A.1(e)/(f) and A.1(h)”][Relevant to: “Interaction between A.1(e)/(f) and A.1(h)”,
A.1(e), A.1(f), A.1(h)].

·Under Class A, part A.1(h),
where part of a proposed extension would extend beyond an original side wall, the restriction against having
“a width greater than half the width of the original dwellinghouse” applies only to that part of the
extension that extends beyond the original side wall. In other words, the overall width of the
proposed extension can be greater than then half the width of the main house, so long as the
part of the extension that extends beyond the original side wall does not do so by more than half the width
of the house.[Note: This would appear to contradict
at least one other appeal decision – for further information see the entry in the “Reference Section” on
“A.1(h)”][Relevant to: A.1(h)].

·Under Class A, part A.1(h),
where part of a proposed extension would extend beyond an original side wall, the restriction against having
“more than one storey” applies only to that part of the extension that extends beyond the original
side wall. In other words, the part of the proposed extension that does not extend beyond the original side
wall can have more than one storey, so long as the part of the extension that extends beyond
the original side wall does not have more than one storey.[Note: This would appear to contradict
at least one other appeal decision – for further information see the entry in the “Reference Section” on
“A.1(h)”]
[Relevant to: A.1(h)].

Links to the “Appeal
Decision Notice” and other associated documents (e.g. drawings, etc):